I think that the discussion around the cake making, and also wedding photography is off base. It is assumed that these are public accommodations. As far as I’m concerned, they aren’t.
They aren’t like buses or public restrooms, for which there is no alternative, and where the issue is like service for all. They are being asked to perform a custom service for which there are alternative providers. To my mind, that’s different.
“..Christian wedding website designer’s choice not to provide services to gay couples..”
As usual, the Hill lies in its first sentence. The business is a website design business, not just a wedding website design business. The business also provides services to gays so the writer lies about that as well. These facts were not disputed by the state or the business. The state was trying to compel the designer’s speech to be what is acceptable to the state. That is a violation of the designers free speech and is an unconstitutional act by the state of Colorado.
Congress should impeach her for being a racist and thinking there are protected classes of people above the law.
Does she believe a web designer should be forced to make am anti-LGBT web site?
They aren’t refusing, If a guy person asked them to make a web site for their interior design business it’s not a refusal. Whst if a guy person asks them to create a Nazi wen sire? They are required to make it?
This was a wise and just decision.
This guy shouldn’t be required to do this anymore than a jewish magazine should be required to run Nazi ads.
Why does who you want to play slap and tickle with make you a member of a protected class? With that logic protection must be expanded to include pedophiles and a whole other host of perversions.
The Wide Latina brays again.
We seriously need to impeach certain judges. And get rid of scardy cat rinos.
That is not true at all. If a gay couple asked her to create a web site about Yellowstone National Park she couldn’t refuse based on orientation.
The erection of "protected classes" is repugnant to the Constitution, and is prohibited by Article IV, Amendment XIV, Amendment XV and by the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1957, and 1964.
This has to be torn out, root and branch, or the nation will perish.
Roz from Monster’s Ink is not happy.
So are two non-homosexuals that get married a protected class?
We’re basically at the point where “protected class” should explicitly name Christian’s. What when the Pride parade have the upper hand socially? Who needs protection?
It’s absurd. Just as absurd as thinking “equality under the law” means you carve out a “protected class”, where it’s an ‘extra crime’ if you do the same to them as you would anyone else. The ‘crime’ becomes subjective and has no business being in law.
“First, Rasmussen must explain the nature of its relationship with several right-leaning blogs and online media outlets, which have given us reason to doubt the ethical operation of the polling firm. please tell us whether questions are ever suggested to Rasmussen from these outlets, including Fox News and “Steve Bannon’s War Room”, where Rasmussen’s head pollster regularly appears, with the promise of coverage in return for “public” fieldwork? Do Rasmussen’s pollsters work with anyone from these organizations on topics to consider polling, despite listing polls as un-sponsored or sponsored by other groups? Does the pollster have a close personal relationship with any of these figures that might cloud their judgement in the operation of a public poll?”
Maybe we can see the beginning of the reduction in two things - what is a “public accomodation” and what does the CONSTITUTION say about any “protected classes”. As far as I know all the “protected classes” are attributes identifiable at birth, nationality or by religion and not adopted behaviors.
““Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” Sotomayor wrote.”
I may be wrong but my understanding was not that this business refused to serve a “protected class” but that they declined to provide a particular service. The aggrieved party could have chosen any of the defendants other services or products, just not one that violated the religious/moral beliefs of the business.
Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor
Bahahaha
The constitution wins
Libtards have a crisis
Bahahahhahahaha